Die katholische Kirche und Moralpolitik in Österreich: Reformdynamiken in der Regulierung von Schwangerschaftsabbrüchen und der Anerkennung gleichgeschlechtlicher Partnerschaften

Eine vergleichende Analyse der Regulierung von Schwangerschaftsabbrüchen und gleichgeschlechtlichen Partnerschaften in Westeuropa im Zeitraum von 1960 bis 2010 zeigt, dass katholisch geprägte Staaten diese Bereiche grundsätzlich nicht weniger stark liberalisiert haben als andere Länder. Allerdings drosselt der Katholizismus offensichtlich die Geschwindigkeit von Reformprozessen. Auf Basis einer detaillierten explorativen Analyse der Politikentwicklungen in Österreich, das sehr früh die Gesetzgebung zum Schwangerschaftsabbruch lockerte, jedoch bei der Einführung registrierter homosexueller Partnerschaften lange zögerte, leiten wir induktiv theoretische Implikationen ab: Die katholische Kirche kann permissive Reformen so lange verhindern, wie institutionelle und kulturelle Gelegenheitsstrukturen nicht der säkular-liberalen Opposition behilflich sind, erfolgreiches Agenda-Setting zu betreiben und Mehrheiten für einen Politikwechsel zu gewinnen.

Islam and the Legal Enforcement of Morality

Over sixty years ago, British high court judge Patrick Devlin and legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart fought out a famous debate over the legal enforcement of morality, which was generated by the question whether homosexuality should be legalized or not. Jurists agree that this debate was won by Hart, also evidenced in the fact that the state has since been retreating from its previous role of moral watchdog. I argue in this paper that the two most conflicted and essentially unresolved issues in the integration of Islam, the regulation of the female body and of free speech, have reopened this debate anew, pushing the liberal state toward the legal regulation of morality, thus potentially putting at risk its liberalness. I use the Hart-Devlin debate as a template for comparing and contrasting the Muslim quest for restricting free speech with the host-society quest for restricting the Islamic veil. Accordingly, there is a double threat to liberalism, which this paper brings into view in tandem, one originating from Islam and another from a hypertrophied defense of liberalism.

Working with A Secular Age. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Charles Taylor's Master Narrative

Charles Taylor’s monumental book A Secular Age has been extensively discussed, criticized, and worked on. This volume, by contrast, explores ways of working with Taylor’s book, especially its potentials and limits for individual research projects. Due to its wide reception, it has initiated a truly interdisciplinary object of study; with essays drawn from various research fields, this volume fosters substantial conversation across disciplines.

The Secular State Under Siege: Religion and Politics in Europe and America

Throughout human history, religion and politics have entertained the most intimate of connections as systems of authority regulating individuals and society. While the two have come apart through the process of secularization, secularism is challenged today by the return of public religion. This cogent analysis unravels the nature of the connection, disconnection, and attempted reconnection between religion and politics in the West. In a comparison of Western Europe and North America, Christianity and Islam, Joppke advances far-reaching theoretical, historical, and comparative-political arguments. With respect to theory, it is argued that only a “substantive” concept of religion, as pertaining to the existence of supra-human powers, opens up the possibility of a historical-comparative perspective on religion. At the level of history, secularization is shown to be the distinct outcome of Latin Christianity itself. And at the level of comparative politics, the Christian Right in America which has attacked the “wall of separation” between religion and state and Islam in Europe with the controversial insistence on sharia law and other “illiberal” claims from some quarters are taken to be counterpart incarnations of public religion and challenges to the secular state. This clearly argued, sweeping book will provide an invaluable framework for approaching an array of critical issues at the intersection of religion, law and politics for advanced students and researchers across the social sciences and legal studies, as well as for the interested public.

Vom gesellschaftlichen Engagement für den Islam zum islamischen Engagement für die Gesellschaft – Verschiebungen In Tariq Ramadans Plädoyer für eine ganzheitliche Moderne

Tariq Ramadan (born 1962) is not only a leading thinker of Islamic Reformism, but also the most prominent Muslim actor in the ongoing reconfiguration of secularity in Europe. As a guiding back- ground, the introduction to this paper establishes that by now a public role for religion in secular societies is widely accepted, albeit attached to conditions (1). After an insight into the self-posi- tioning of Ramadan, followed by a comprehensive overview of secondary literature (2), I argue for two – discernible rather than clear-cut – phases to be identified within his discourse over 16 years: Considering secular societies as devoid of values, Ramadan promotes a distinct Islamic alternative that grounds its (modern) principles (allegedly) in revelation only, and also includes specific norms of Islamic law (3). Later, the Islam to be realized consists almost exclusively of ethics – of which the basic values are shared by, and even to be established with, all members of society (4). Ramadan’s continuous plea for a holistic modernity is elaborated on at the end of this paper (5).

Double Standards? Veils and Crucifixes in the European Legal Order

Comparing the treatment of Islamic veils and Christian crucifixes by the European Court of Human Rights, this paper re-examines the charge of “double standards” on the part of this guardian of the European legal order, which is seen as disadvantaging Islam and favoring Christianity. While this is proved partially correct, the paper calls for a more differentiated treatment of the issue. For one, there is a modicum of consistency in the European Court’s decisions, because they are all meant to further “pluralism”. Only, Islam and Christianity fare differently in this respect, as “threat” to and “affirmation” of pluralism, respectively. This distinction hinges on Islam’s compatibility with the liberal-secular order, on which the jury is out. A possible way out of the “pluralism v. pluralism” dilemma, I argue, is signaled in the European Court’s recent decision in Lautsi v. Italy (2011), which pairs a preference for “culturalized” Christianity with robust minority pluralism.